We are NOT Training Iraqi Forces?

Remove all ads!

Here's another conveniently buried story in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre last week. It turns out, that the training of Iraqi troops is no longer the top priority. Now, maybe it's me, but hasn't that been exactly what we've been hearing for the past few years? "When they stand up, we'll stand down."

If you don't like this particular article a google search on the subject will reveal a few dozen others.

Why the reason for this change? Well evidently, the Iraqi forces are ineffective to the point where some of them are actually working for the other side:

Are you kidding me? We're so desperate to fill the ranks of the Iraqi army that we're taking people who are working FOR the sectarian groups? Un-freakin-believable.

But I feel that the article actually understates the case. The most troubling aspect isn't that there are insurgents in the Iraqi army - it's that this is "stay the course" in sheep's clothing. I'm sure some on the Republican side will cite this as changing policy to meet the new demands of the war. But it's not. IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR OVER FOUR YEARS NOW. It places American and British soldiers on the front lines fighting this war, with Iraqis taking a back seat. My question is if we're not making training Iraqi troops a top priority, then how can we expect them to stand up?

Does anyone else find this a tad troubling?

 

What about the state of Iraq right now ISN'T troubling? This isn't terribly surprising to me, as I never thought the "as they stand up, we stand down" idea to be the least bit practical. Sectarian divisions that have stood for centuries, a culture of bribary and commonplace corruption among public officials and police, and a general "if we just humor them, they'll leave sooner" attitude are far too ingrained in the culture of Iraq for this ever to have been all that effective. Even if it worked and the Iraqi forces were able to kick enough ass for us to leave, I honestly believe they would have fallen apart in a matter of months. Patriotism is always trumped by sectarianism in this part of the world, unfortunately.

I mean am I the only one who thought it was wishful thinking from day one? Monday-morning quarterbacking not-withstanding, did this ever sound reasonable to anyone else?

 

Of course it didn't sound reasonable. At every step we Canadians have been pretty much thanking our lucky stars that our government had the balls to say NO! when the U.S. wanted us to join them in invading Iraq.

Now if they could only come to their senses and decide to pull out of Afghanistan too we would be saving a lot more Canadian lives that are being thrown away for little to no return.

For the life of me I don't understand what our governments think their troops are possibly accomplishing over there.

 

Well... um... come to think of it... no, it didn't sound reasonable. However, the whole point of the policy of the Bush administration was we could leave once the Iraqi military forces were capable of taking care of themselves. Sure, it likely all would have crumbled in a matter of months, and the whole thing would have gone to hell in a handbag, but at least our boys would be coming home.

By saying we aren't actively training Iraqi soldiers means that no timetable for down-sizing the number of troops in Iraq is possible before a new administration takes over in January of 2009. That is troubling. While it may have been wishful thinking on my part, I did not think Bush's ego was so large that he would continue to pour additional money and American troops lives into the bottomless pit that Iraq has become.

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, should not have taken back or rephrased what he said last week. Iraq is, in fact, lost. He said this week: "The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political; it has been policy; it has been presidential." I at least can resepct that he grew a bit of a backbone - basically he's saying the Bush f'ed up. I also like the fact that he didn't blame the military. Iraq is lost, but not because of what the military did.

 

That the US stopped training Iraqi troops is widely misunderstood. Just like stories that the US hopes that retina-scanning of Iraqi troops and numbering their weapons to prevent them from selling them - that is insurgent propaganda spread by the liberal media.

There is no reliability and loyalty problem in the Iraqi army. That the US no longer need to train Iraqi troops is in fact proof that America is succeeding. They maintain careful 'economy of force'. The Iraqi army simply does more with less. That shows genuine progress.

There can be no denying that Bush's 'Strategy for Victory' is a stunning success. The simplest plans are the best -- 'keep it simple, stupid is a proven principle after all*. Bush's plan is bulletproof and blast resistant. And the only thing his strategy requires is to succeed. When** the US succeed they are victorious Now anybody dare deny the logic in that

/channeling O'Reilly

*even though many people misread it as meaning. 'Keep it simple and stupid'. Well, they still sort-of get the idea.
**using 'when' in this context expresses mandatory American 'can-do spirit'.

[ April 24, 2007, 11:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

WE are training Iraqi troops. American's are too busy blowing up friendlies, killing civilians and shouting 'Booyaaa!' etc. .

British troops are the best at peace-keeping. Leave us to it. You Yanks troops go and eat your burgers and fries, washed down with a trough of coke or whatever it is you do in your spare time.

(****in 'ave it )

 

Actually, our soldiers in Iraq would be shouting "Hooah". The Marines just bark. And the term for our soda is "Supersize".

 

Posts like this remind me that Americans don't have a monopoly on boorishness.

I believe that the troops of both nations are doing the best that they can given the absurd limitations that are imposed upon them by the incompetent politicians who are running this whole thing. Combat troops are not peace keepers and should not be used as such. With the limitations placed upon them I think that the restraint the troops display is amazing. Seeing your comrades killed and maimed by guerilla fighters and not being able to retaliate in any way goes against a soldier's training and, indeed, human nature itself.

You are not alone, JSBB.

I agree completely.

 

Dinsdale

Yes? I strongly disagree. The civilian leadership is as much the Pentagon as the uniforms. And the uniforms have done a great deal to enable the decisions and to exacerbate a situation made rotten by moronic civilian decisions.

I remember the US conducting Israeli-style reprisals or collective punishment, like destroying acient palm groves and the like after attacks out of that area. Or those 'door kickin' raids by US forces that created first of all resentment. Or take the flattening of Fallujah. Not exactly an enduring success. And then, of course, the actual killing, treatment of Iraqis in general. The emphasis on 'force protection' over everything else, namely Iraqi lives and/or property.

It took the US military three years to rediscover that this is not the way to conduct counterinsurgency warefare. They only re-published an according field manual last year, more than three years after the invasion. Before that was silly stuff only Green Berets do, not worthy of a transformed military specialised in putting steel on target, using expensive gizmos. By now it is probably simply late to for the US to be able to succeed.

To free the military from responsibility by blaming it all on an admittedly moronic neo-con leadership and resident moron Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Whitehouse does only feed comfortable delusions. I find it very hard to believe that the blame for a rotten war only rests on the shoulders of the civilians. Reminds me of that say: Victory has many fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

Rumsfeld didn't act out of a vacuum. What about the docile chiefs of staff? Folks like Gen. Shinseki who stood up and faced the (grim) consequences were the exception. And the other generals and subordinate officers in Iraq who ordered and conducted the abovementioned blunders? The troops who more often than not communicate with Iraqis only over a barrel of a gun, and in english? Clearly, all Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz' and Feith's fault. NOT.

[ April 24, 2007, 02:22: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

@ Rags,

This isn't really how our military works, and I think you know that. The military doesn't state the mission, the civilian leadership in the Pentagon does. The military plans and executes the way to accomplish the mission (in the broader sense, that is), but the suits in the Pentagon tells them what the mission is.

In essence, the politicians give them lemons and they do their best to make lemonade. It sucks for them, but that's the way our armed forces are set up. There are obviously upsides and downsides to this arrangement.

Most of the dastardly things you mentioned - such as reprinting the manuals three years too late - can be laid at the feet of the incompetants that worked for Rumsfeld, not the military specialists. Chalk it up to Rumsfeld's grand "restructuring" of the military.

While they do share at least some of the blame, I find it unfair, absurd, and damn near insulting to suggest that my armed forces had as much of a hand in the series of disasters that has been Iraq as the administration does. Yes, the heavy handed tactics and cultural ignorance of our soldiers has been embarrassing and inflamatory. But it's the administration's job to make sure the soldiers were properly prepared before sending them into the field, and they didn't.

So of course they civilian leadership doesn't get ALL the blame, but they do get most. Hell, my fellow civilians deserve a share of it as well. I guess I just get really pissed off when people trash our servicemen like you're doing now, when the majority of them are moral, decent, hard-working people out to do good. They deserve a lot more respect than you're giving them. A LOT more.

EDIT: If you're referring not to the lower-ranking unit and battalion commanders in the field, but are referring solely to the senior military leadership who serve under the SecDef in the Pentagon, then I may have misunderstood you. But it appeared (and still appears) like you were lumping all the military together for your bashing session.

By the way, Eric Shinseki was by no means the only general who disagreed with the administration early on, he was just the first to speak up about it, and his dismissal ensured that he'd be the last.

Read a little more about Rumsfeld's management policies and you'll find that it WAS his fault. Rumsfeld disagreed and dismissed the advice of military advisors ALL THE TIME. It may as well have been his stock and trade. It's not the responsibility of individual unit commanders to teach the soldiers in their command proper Iraqi street etiquette - this kind of informantion is disseminated from above. It was Rumsfeld's people who thought it was a waste of time to provide more translators and cultural sensitivity education. For all Rumsfeld's talk about "winning hearts and minds" he clearly didn't give two sh*ts about it.

The list of requests from the boots on the ground that went unanswered by Rumsfeld's defense department is long and well documented. Again - please direct your ire in the proper direction.

[ April 24, 2007, 02:57: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I thought it was reasonable at the get-go. But then, back '03, I was woefully ignorant of basic history, much less topics like 'counter-insurgency' and examplars such as the Philippines (1898-present), the Brits in Afghanistan, the Brits in Iraq (1917) the Russkies in Afghanistan, the Americans in Vietnam, the Brits in Malaysia, the Germans in Yugoslavia, etc.

Which brings me to my point: y'know whose fault it is that 60-900k Iraqis are dead, 3k Americans are KIA, 20k are WIA, millions are displaced, and so on? Yours. Mine. The American people's. This is a representative democracy, even after the immense influence a relative few hold is considered. We could have prevented the invasion. We did not. We re-elected Bush, fer Chrissakes.

I don't recall if I've mentioned this before, but I've heard a retired general say, in person, 'in hindsight, we should have refused to attack Iraq with the forces we were given'.

They blame themselves, even if you do not blame them.

 

I never re-elected Bush. I voted for the other guy. Heck, in 2000, Bush wasn't even elected.

 

DR,

I know about Rumsfeld's abrasive leadership style. There is no doubt in my mind the man is an idiot, full of himself, and thought himself a great military leader after the initial success in Afghanistan. And I am aware of the quiet protest that manifested itself in the Pentagon leaking info about neo-con plans. And yes, soldiers obey orders, and that's to a great extent what has happened. And yes again, it is more than telling that Gen. Sheehan refused to become war-czar with the remark

Not just Rummy, but Cheney, Rice and Bush as well -- all talking past each other, not cooperating. And yes again, a lot of the mess came from Rummy and Cheney destroying the interagency cooperation in order to not have their plans watered down by the competition. That's why they want a war-czar now, because the NSC is destroyed, because the ideologues can't wrap their egos and moral clarity around cooperating with the enemy realists, and Rice is one weak sister, and Bush is the fool presiding over this mess for six years now, with apparently little objection. That would be funny if it was a bowling club.

The narrative that Rummy holds all the blame smells fishy to me. It reminds me eerily of the traditional self serving narratives exonerating the military after defeat. Like the stuff German generals told after the Second World War: 'All Hitler's fault. The Wehrmacht fought honourably and gloriously. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and Bagram were led by the SS and the Gestapo. We were, like, chairs in the room, inanimate objects moved by the will of the powers that be, the Führer in Chief.' Or what German conservatives told after the First World War: 'Our army was undefeated in the field but stabbed in the back by treacherous politicians, and the communists'. That's horse manure, of course. Germany lost both wars because it was overextended, too many enemies, too little resources.

Or think of the US conservative narrative about the Vietnam war: We won every battle but lost because of them hippies at home. Morse manure again. The US lost Vietnam because they were clueless about that war being a national war of independence, and not a proxy war against China and World Communism.
The US lost Iraq because they are overextended too, with an all volunteer military that didn't and still doesn't have the manpower required to pacify a foreign conquest. Saying that aloud was what Shinseki was sacked for. And when after him nobody else dared to stand up, that faults them as much as Rumsfeld -- it still means they were cowards, or compliant lackeys who valued their careers more than their professional integrity. The guys who after the war say: We only followed orders.

[ April 24, 2007, 17:30: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well DR summed up pretty much what I was going to say. Let me add this - perhaps saying the military was too broad a term. It wasn't the soldier's fault - is that any better? Yes, Abu Ghraib, raping 14-year olds and the like are not the actions becoming a U.S. soldier. However, over 99% of the green suiters served honorably, but lack decision making authority, and really have no choice BUT to follow orders. I do not fault them.

This has already been touched on too, but I, like 49.1% of Americans voted for someone other than Bush. Bush is my President, but he wasn't my choice.

Finally, Barmy, anytime the Brits want to take over peace keeping duties is fine by me. Clearly, we have shown we are not the best people for the job. The Brits can't possibly do any worse.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

If he's telling the truth, you damned well can cast blame at the military for the Iraq debacle. A lot of it, at that.

As far as the fault, I think I'd like to quote Daniel Ellsberg. He was writing on Vietnam, but what he wrote holds just as true for Iraq

 

People with honor and dignity often blame themselves when things go south. This is part of why I have such admiration for the military. But it doesn't mean it's their fault, in large part or entirity.

But you're right - dividing up who has a greater share of the blame is moot. The blame ultimately lies with the American people. That I have to regretfully concede.

 

Aldeth,
the privates, corporals and sergeants are barely ever to blame, excesses excluded. Same for junior officers and normal staff people. The system usually retains integrity until Lt.Col. and Col. level. After that political considerations gain importance.

That said, even though they are a minority one can not blend out the decisionmakers in green at the top level. It's their decisions that characterise the service the lower ranks do. It is worth keeping in mind that the Generals are the product of the same career and education system that produces corporals, sergeants, lieutenants, majors etc.

 

That is simply not true. There are two delineations in the military - enlisted and officers. The first two you list belong to the former group, while the second two you list belong to the latter group. They have distinct career and educational paths, and never the twain shall meet.

It's not like you have to start off as enlisted and work your way up to an officer. In fact, most officers were never enlisted - they started their military careers as officers. These include all of the ROTC people, and all the graduates from West Point and the other military acadamies.

 

Not really. I'll refer to Lt. Col. and CDR (Navy) as O-5's; COl and CAPT (again Navy) as O-6's. O-5's in general do not have any political pull. Perhaps in a small military they do, but there are nearly 30,000 O-5's on active duty in the US Military and even more in the reserves. O-5's are considered senior officers, but simply do not have political clout unless they have personal connections (they personally know a congressman or flag rank officer).

Out of the 12,000 O-6's in the active military, only a few hundred are politically connected -- less than 100 are being looked at seriously for a flag promotion. For 90% of the O-6's, they have reached the pinnicle in their career and they know it -- these guys have very little political clout. It's just the upper 10% of the O-6's that really play into the political game you are implying.

That said, even the most junior congressman or woman trumps the most senior flag officer. I remember quite well a former Chief of Naval Operations given a public standing-down by the most junior member of the House Armed Services Committee. Political appointees have ALWAYS run the policy of the defense department while the professional side takes care of plans and tactics.

Aldeth is dead on. In my career only 5% of the officers I knew had been enlisted men early in their career (myself included). They are called Mustangs.

 

@T2: You're a Mustang? My respect for you just went way up. Are you still in, or have you left?

In some rare cases, the lowest officer ranks can also be bypassed. When hiring the conductor for Pershing's Own (The US Army Band), the Army grants the hiree (who is often, but not always, a civilian with no military experience) the rank of Colonel. On the flip side, he's never going to be a flag officer. Colonel is as far as he's going.

During times of war, or for specific assignments that require an officer of a certain rank, it isn't unusual for officers to be (probationally) skipped a rank or two. When the assignment is completed, sometimes the rank is taken away, but not usually.